My best suggestion
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Implemented
Forum Description: Suggestions which have been implemented or resolved.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=747
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 09:14
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: My best suggestion
Posted By: Tony
Subject: My best suggestion
Date Posted: 05 Jul 2010 at 16:36
|
The best way to super enhance this game is to strictly limit the range of an army. If they were only able to move perhaps 15 or 20 squares from home you would greatly limit the dominance of alliances and encourage some game action. Players would be able to assess the threats, develop an offensive stategy and manage a war on a more level playing field, instead of being paralysed by the threat of an attack from every direction.
We could have battles all over the map instead of this stalemate. Players are just sitting on their armies without ever having the chance to use them for fear of a mass reprisal. You have the rubbish situation of the entire game being controlled by the few heads of big alliances. Limiting their range and influence would open the game up to everyone.
It would stimulate this game tremendously and make it far more strategic.
Please seriously consider.
|
Replies:
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 05 Jul 2010 at 23:06
| Given such a mechanic, some of us would have already "won" and be sitting completely useless. That doesn't really sound like an activity booster to me. If you want more excitement, join an alliance, and make more of them big and formidable. |
Posted By: Tony
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 09:25
|
How would you have won ????. Your progression would be to gradually spread across the map as you expand outward, claiming a block of land as your own, joining up blocks of land with your allies, protecting your borders. etc. Giving freedom to have minor wars without involvement of alliances. Far from making game more interesting, alliances are the game killers, they deter any movement. But it would be good for alliances too as they could form proper definable territories, instead of having members dotted everywhere in such chaotic fashion. It would give the map real shape.
I hope the game designers will give it some thought and reply.
|
Posted By: Tony
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 09:37
|
P,S To mule. Your suggestion of forming big formidable alliances has exactly the opposite effect. All that does is create stalemate. H and White for example are never going to fight and even if they did it would be totally inconclusive. The only "fights" you will see are big bullies eating up the small fry. That is as interesting as a football match with 50 on one side and 1 player on the other.
Imagine how interesting it could be if all you had to worry about was threats from your neighbourhood, you could plan a far more progressive game.
|
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 09:54
|
H and White are fighting each other constantly Tony. FYI :) ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tony
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 11:19
| Well I did not know that but tell me where any significant gain has been made by either side. Regardless, that does not change the validity of my suggestion. The game would be so much more dynamic. Good for big and smaller players alike. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 13:15
|
H and White are both spread out alliances and as such conclusion will be very slow. The game has certainly come up lacking in volatility for alliances at our scale, and this is largely a function of being able to build tight clusters and troop speeds that are very slow compared to the size of the game world. Also, many mechanics designed to prevent large players from gooning smaller ones have the side effect of promoting stalemate amongst equals (even if to a lesser degree). However, a city has been destroyed and a few additional attempts made on both sides. Also keep in mind that much of the fighting is at intellectual levels, and military activity will substantially accelerate when the war is won there. ---- Players who play lone ranger or just join a small-time alliance of locals have no idea how much intrigue, suspense, true camaraderie earned amongst battle scars, and opportunity to develop new social, "real" world skills they are missing. So while my original argument was facetious, the suggestion itself was serious. Join a big alliance or grow the one you are in. Become large enough that you can no longer operate as a rag-tag group of friends and start experimenting with different forms of governance (and don't just assume either democracy, dictatorship, or republic will work--there are plenty of other options like feudalism which can better manage regional organization, for example). Divide roles, establish training regimen and standards for promotion, perform field exercises, award medals for service in combat, etc. Find your place amongst the other alliances and choose allies you can rely on not only to back you up but to refrain from dragging you into their messes (or making messes in the first place). Choose a cause, stand by it, and wars will magically materialize with alliances that don't share your world view. No matter how sophisticated the options get, this is still a browser game. 90% of the thrill and appeal comes from what you bring to the table. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 13:15
|
Diablito of White lost his town. H and White have been sieging eachother, so some people lost alot of buildings. Armies clashed, 10's of thousands of units died. Maybe H and White lost 100k units already? -------------
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 13:35
| That sounds about right. We've not kept a tally, but thousands die in each clash. |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 14:28
|
There are supposedly plans to introduce magical portals through which armies may pass (not siege eqipment though) Which will greatly change the effects of war and open up the field of battle for alliances sprawled around the map. It would be good to have easier, yet temporary ways to make gains though. Such as conquering towns through normal attacks which would prevent that town for attacking your alliance for say 2 months and their income would be taxed at your alliances tax rate which would then be sent to your alliance instead of theirs. (Re-inforcment are allowed by the player and further attacks against the player would cancel this) Or perhaps a capture and hold form of attack which would have a simmilar effect but the attacking army would remain in the city untill destroyed or told to go home. |
Posted By: Tony
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 17:50
| But have you considered my suggestion. limiting armies to a short range would really shake it up. It would be totally good. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 18:16
I did, which lead to my first response--where I basically pointed out that limiting players will only bore the established ones (i.e. about 2 months in) out of the game. The reduction in threat/danger to new players will also only make most of them complacent as well, and the few who remain motivated will still dominate locally (first by outpacing neighbors economically, which goes unnoticed)--and then quit from boredom as further expansion becomes overly difficult yet retaliation from neighbors equally so.
Involuntary protectorates. HonoredMule approves. In 3rd person, no less. It's a happy middle ground between obliteration/total conquest and pointless skirmishes. |
Tony wrote:Posted By: Tony
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 11:08
| Mule it would have the opposite effect to the one you say. Far from boring the established players it would give greater freedom to all by not needing to play quite so defensively. How do you get the game designers attention ? Do they read these things ? It would be good to know that they have at least seen the idea. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 11:23
|
We have seen the idea, but don't have a strong opinion on it either way. There are many things about to change in the game and so we need to consider everything balanced together; especially when a suggestion involves a *fundamental* change to the way the game operates. On the whole, we like it when players discuss the pros and cons of a suggestion, as they often come up with things that we might not have spotted ourselves. The more comments, opinions and ideas the better. So yes, we have read this; no, we're not ignoring it; yes, we're interested in what everyone has to say; no, we're not sold on the idea; and finally yes, we'll continue to keep tabs on the thread. Regards, GM Stormcrow |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 14:00
|
Tony as you have put it I don't believe that your idea could possibly be good for the game. However i suppose once a more detailed area of influence sytem is incorporated there could be a system whereby you can only attack cities within or bordering your area of influence, or your allies area of influence. The inclusion of allies ensures that players will never "win". It also means that new settlments can be used as an outpost allowing an alliance access to new areas of the map and greatly reduces the benifits of clustering. This idea does kind of rely on portals. Also if this idea was incorperated as well as my "capture and hold" idea it could be made so that if a town is held by an enemy force then allies can no longer attack the surronding area (unless another city enables them to). However the held town can be attacked in order to liberate it. |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 14:16
| This idea could also give the game a nice feeling of expanding an empire, and away from the centre of the map would give huge strategic benifit to 'holding' potentially hostile towns even if these are small towns with only a relativley small population as they are all potential gateway. |
Posted By: Shrapnel
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 16:39
|
To be honest, I just don't like Tony's idea. The reason is because it doesn't seem realistic. Why shouldn't armies be able to travel as far as they can? Armies have traveled vast distances throughout history. Of course, they also had the supplies to do so. They brought food, water, and whatever else they needed. So this gave me an idea. There could be some kind of supply range limit such as food upkeep (the more food you give to the army the longer their range) or we could have a supply train unit. Maybe caravans could acompany armies carrying food. The army has to turn back and go home when the food runs out. The actual implementation I leave to others, but I think this puts a more realistic spin on Tony's suggestion. |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 19:15
| Tony there's already a built in limiting factor to how far a player will send their army: time. If it takes a week to get where (and thus a week to get back) you're not sitting defenseless for two weeks. Time does this in a far more natural and less arbitrary manner than you speak of. Plus look at it this way. right now you can actually choose your alliance mates. In your plan you would be stuck with whomever you spawned next to. Plus what do the ppl at the middle of your expanding blob do after the blob is bigger than 20 squares? |
Posted By: Tony
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2010 at 10:33
|
Thanks to Stormcrow.
In response to Shrapnel - I had already intended to add that limiting an army range would ADD to the realism. Real armies do not attack from one side of the world to the other in a single bound. They progress gradually. Capturing cities or establishing bases as stepping stones along the way.
Larry - armies attack from a day or two away, usually as part of a mass attack from a big alliance picking on a small one or an unafilliated player. It doesnt matter if it takes time to get there. If his only option to survive is to try and join a big alliance it underlines my point that big alliances stagnate the game, deterring progression.
I understand it is a fundamental shift, but if players were given a long enough advanced warning of the change they could adjust their tactics accordingly.
Limiting army range reduces the power of big alliances and that would be very best thing for the game. Levelling the playing field more.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2010 at 15:49
|
Why don't you try joining a large alliance and see for yourself what form of gameplay is truly stagnant? Heck, take a leadership position...you could be working in-game from sunup to sundown and never get to launch an army. Playing lone ranger is deterring your own progression and limiting your own game experience 100-fold. I can see why from that perspective you should feel like you can lark about with small skirmishes or diplomatic missions on a daily basis without fear of getting steamrolled, because that's the whole game to you: carving out one small niche amongst 10,000 small niches. But that's actually a pretty mundane gaming experience, and most eventually get bored and leave if they aren't destroyed anyway. Alliance members have a chance to be a part of something that may grow large (and sophisticated) enough to earn respect and recognition amongst its peers. It doesn't require being "first to market," either--a new player will likely never catch up to the strength and development of a 6-month veteran, but a new alliance has a far better chance with so many more factors at play not dictated by game mechanics. It isn't at all fair to limit our game experience so profoundly (and this certainly would) because you choose not to partake...especially when forces you don't even know about are sticking up for you and your right to play the way you want (even if we don't understand it). Browser games are a mere platform for much more intricate social battlefields containing allies you haven't even met. Multiple alliances label themselves as training or protection alliances and harbor newbies until they are developed (Shrapnel heads one such alliance). Several other large alliances promote by peaceful means a nurturing attitude toward new players, or at least disallow their own members from attacking them. Also, a day or two away isn't that far. And as pointed out earlier, limiting recruitment choices by locality really narrows your neighborhood from a social aspect. The only players you get to interact with meaningfully (and therefore at all in practice) are those well within your control radius. Tough luck if they're all jerks. |
Posted By: Tony
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2010 at 11:28
| Everything you say seems to illustrate the point perfectly Mule. We have thousands of registered players. Only a very few can be leaders of large alliances. Im talking about a game change that will benefit the masses, not just the few string pullers at the top. I could obviously not persuade people like you to give up your influence, that would be too selfless of you. Hoping that GMs will put the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few - or the one. :) If you are planning on making armies transferrable between cities then this would be a good time to limit their range as players would be able to adjust their forces accordingly. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2010 at 15:42
|
I hate to break it to you, but leadership is a bitch of a job. It's hard work and its the members that benefit way more than the heads. I have to take time away from developing my own account to even do a half-assed job at maintaining diplomatic relations, assisting/training members, establishing policies, tracking the activities of spies (90% accounting) and running counterintelligence operations, administrating forums and other alliance resources, smoothing over conflicts that shouldn't have happened and then coaching the member players that start them, and the list continues. If I had a normal 9-5 job I couldn't possibly manage both leadership and a large/active account--as it is I wouldn't dream of running a second one. And for the record, I'd happily step down if others were willing to take my place. An alliance that isn't understaffed is a lucky alliance, because it doesn't take too long to find out how cool it isn't to be the man in charge. At least in real life we get paid lots. For the most part, the benefits I'm extolling are about the experience people have by joining an alliance, not leading one. You interact (in a friendly way) with players chosen from a larger pool, based on common interests and goals rather than proximity. You commiserate each others' losses, and plot together against common enemies. You exchange advice, tips, and training with each other; participate in coordinated joint operations that tax skills not needed for a one-man operation; trade more; get economic assistance when you need it, and then pay it forward; discuss policies and self-governance; elect leaders (if you can actually get more than one candidate for a position) and--depending on the form of government chosen--vote on key issues like whether to go to war with certain alliances. Everyone builds and runs a society, not just its leaders. That might be less true in real life, but in a game like this, dictatorship survives only so long as it produces results that please its members. After all, anyone can dissent or jump ship any time, and often even their accounts are safe from effective reprisal due to alternative support options. And revolts or mass-exodus are way more doable than in real life. Bottom line is this: join an alliance, and even as an entry-level recruit, you will find greater opportunity to do way more and have more fun doing it. Playing this game alone is like running your own empty IRC channel. The chatbots really won't get you far. |
Posted By: Akita
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2010 at 16:11
|
Building up on what HonoredMule just said, a small clarification : GOOD leadership is a whole lot of work, and then some more work too afterwards, followed by a bit more work again, all of it on a regular basis. It doesn't take much effort to do a lousy job as any kind of leader though, if leadership duties do seem easy and are completed fast, it might just be they are doing it pretty badly...
|
Posted By: Tony
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2010 at 14:43
|
You prove the point again. You say yourself that the only real option is to be consumed by a big alliance to be dictated to by a few like you. My suggestion gives a good way to allow more freedom to choose whether they want alliance play or not. Some people dont want to be "loyal underlings".
Unless you have something new to say can we leave it now. GMs please keep thinking on it. Big alliance power needs reduction. This would be good change, especially in conjunction with your plan to make army units transferrable. Thanks
|
Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2010 at 16:11
|
Limiting the range on movement would stop people from being "consumed" by large alliances and replace it with large players, as the biggest players in an area would have control. Who could stop them with no other large players in range to do anything and those in range would probably join together. Take for example my cities in a limited range i would control my area and the only players even close enough to my size to be a pain are in my alliance, and if that was the case i would get bored and quit. Limiting range on a map as large as Illyriad would imo ruin the game since you have to build cities to expand your range and there is a limit to how many cities you can build in population and time especially if you are not a prestige account getting 10k-20k pop for 5-6th cities would take a long time and still not get you close to anyone if you as far out as people like me. Anyway if you dont like large alliances dont join one there are many smaller groups of players or start your own alliance recruit some people around and play a limited range style see how long you enjoy it before you want to expand further into the gameplay and social aspects sorry for rambling its early i may look over this post after i eat and make my thoughts a lil clearer |
Posted By: waylander69
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2010 at 16:14
|
Tony, start your own alliance, then your not a 'loyal underling' The fact is people have their cities in clusters already, to then put the rules in place your asking for would ruin the game overnight, limited movement, stop and think how that would work, oh i can attack 10 squares from me but no further so if your next town is a major player you would not stand a chance as a new player as he would have no other targets to go for. Or would you like all people to start the same, new players starting next to a town with a population of 2000 gets that so he does not feel left out.
 |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2010 at 05:42
You can always spot a non-conformist because he always looks exactly like every other non-conformist. 
|
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2010 at 15:45
|
I got a normal job IRL. Managing multiple alliances / multiple forums / multiple IRC channels / multiple big accounts / etc etc. Its hard work people! Takes alot of time to do all of this. Lucky i can play Illyriad at work too  -------------
|